This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
this is a very difficult question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.24.148 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to WP:ENGVAR, it really isn't. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)|User talk:Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)]]. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PS Any idea why this thing gives my name twice?
Hello, Mutt Lunker. You have new messages at Rothorpe's talk page. Message added 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
.It works, congratulations. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Private education
Hi, I haven't done this before. Just checking if this is the right way to message you.
Yes, you've got it this time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Great. I take your point about addition of education details. I suppose I feel that a lot of these media personalities deliberately bury the fact that they come from a privileged background so I was trying to 'unbury' it. Perhaps this was too unsubtle. But I think the general public deserve to know where people on TV come from - and factors which helped them gain their current roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray3zor (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's okay, you're new and seem willing to learn. This ain't the way to go about it though. Am in the middle of something at the moment but I'll elaborate shortly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian's advice was good, so I'd advise checking that again. Also read up on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE which will also give you some pointers.
If you do think these people are trying to cover something up, you need to verify this with a reliable source, see WP:V. Your general impression, whether correct or not, isn't sufficient here. In an introduction it's not appropriate to give such weight to something like whether they were privately educated or not. It doesn't define them, it's not what they are primarily known for. To put that in the intro screams out that you have an agenda.
Their education may be worth noting if outlining details of their early life, in the appropriate section but again, don't give undue weight. If it states that the school is independent and or/provides a link to an article on the school, that is sufficient, and adding e.g. "filthy priveliged elitist fee-paying School X" is again clearly pushing an agenda. I'm joking, but you get the point?
That "someone told you this" very much does not satisfy WP:V by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
'Someone told me this' would seem valid when that person is explaining their own history and there is no publicly available record to prove otherwise. That's how newspapers and books are put together - sometimes you take facts direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Again, I'm not trying to push an agenda. I'm just trying to make clear the exact nature of someone's education. I appreciate it was not appropriate to put it in the opening paragraph, but it is certainly appropriate to mention it along the way in measured terms. --Ray3zor (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Please read what has been suggested to you. You clearly don't understand the nature of Wikipedia yet and with the misconceptions you hold about how it operates, you will have a tough time. This is not a newspaper or book or somewhere for you to publish your personal views. If "there is no publicly available record to prove" something, it doesn't go here. See WP:OR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to publish my personal views - as I explained to you previously. I'm trying to state facts clearly. --Ray3zor (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Scottish people
Has there been any discussion on the issues at Scottish people? Is it plausible that this is a content dispute? BTW, continuing to revert with no history of discussion puts you square on top of 3RR. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 00:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, not much or possibly at all at Scottish People but this sock has and currently is being highly active on English People. My bad, but it's part of the same pattern. Also currently hitting Austrian people. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I handled your requests at WP:RFP. After seeing two changes of IP, I range-blocked 95.199.0.0/16 for 31 hours. No otherwise useful edits have originated from this IP range, and the block only lasts till Wednesday morning, so collateral damage should be minimal. [1]Deryck C. 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that - thought I was going to be up all night rvv! I'll get some kip. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I ought also to remind that the IP range is blocked for the user's vexatious behaviour (as opposed to vandalism). The edit is otherwise a legitimate content dispute, and should any other user bring it up, a formal dispute resolution process needs to be taken. Deryck C. 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, was combatting this user purely to stop the deafening and familiar quacking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The Scottish Gaelic task force needs you!
Your participation in the Scottish Gaelic task force which is part of Wikiproject Scotland would be greatly appreciated. If you are interested, please visit the task force's page in order to see how you would be able to participate.
Just noticed that you have a number of edits to Scottish Gaelic. If this isn't actually of interest to you then sorry! Caledonestalk softly, please 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know but I don't feel I'm in a position to dedicate consistent time or effort. I'll lurk for the time being but by all means give me a shout, ad hoc. What's more, any pertinent knowledge I have could be characterised more as "about Gaelic" rather than of the tongue itself; the latter being a fairly limited vocabulary (hillwalker's Gaelic if you like). Would feel I'd be exaggerating to claim even "User gd-1" status. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Invasion of England
After the battle they started England. The battle was a catalyst and the last resistance was defeated. My opinion after research. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand you. After the battle who "started England" and what does that mean? This is about a battle in Scotland so could not have resulted in a successful invasion of somewhere else. Your "opinion after research" is WP:OR and has no place here. 10:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The British resistance was broken and the settlement of all Angles could start. They came with all their people invading Scotland and settled later in England which they gave it's name. It's not their fault that the alliance of Britons, Scots and Picts tried to stop them near Kirkcaldy. It's part of Germanic wars because the British are pro Romans. Not Romans them self but they are clients of the Empire. Is that so hard to understand? Read the article Angles for better understanding. Prophet of Hell (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem confused. The Angles had been in what is now England since the 5th century. Also, even if the Britons in what is now Scotland could ever have been described as clients of Rome, they certainly were not by the end of the 6th century. Presumably you have reliable WP:SOURCES? 10:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
From my standpoint you are the confused. I'm looking at it in the 3rd person. What the alliances were in this ancient time is unclear. Fact is that the Britons were in an anti-Angles coalition and the Angles came with their whole volk to defeat them. If the Britons had contact to the former Roman Empire is unclear but possible. They lived under Roman rule for centuries and were romanized. This defeat was something like de-romanizing to them after 500 years of Roman rule. This can clearly be seen when you read and understand the Roman Britain-Anglo-Saxon battles in Germanic Wars. Prophet of Hell (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, what are your sources for all of this? If it's, as you say, "unclear but possible" you are speculating and adding original research, which is not allowed. If this is just your own thesis, however reasonable you believe it to be if you don't have any sources for this, it has no place in Wikipedia. You are making sweeping generalisations about Britons: these ones were not under Roman rule in any significant sense/for any significant period and were not Romanised. Please stop now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar
The Original Barnstar
For removing cruft from "List of British words not widely used in the United States" and keeping the page reasonably sane
You're very kind. Could be saner, couldn't it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome!
Welcome!
Hello, Mutt Lunker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for [contributions]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Common Sense, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Always remember that the sky is blue. I don't need to reach for my color charts to prove that sky sky is blue rather than aqua. Nor do I need to provide a citation from a biologist professor to prove that the average number of digits on a human's hand is five. Nor does every single word, phrase or sentence in this overly-bureaucratic publication need a citation beside it. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. You should decide whether you are removing this material simply because you don't like it, or because you are over-protective of any given article. Feel free to visit Scotland, Northern Ireland or Yorkshire and get to know the people there, and how they use words differently from yourself. Alternatively, look up the information before you hassle other contributors about adhering to bureaucracy, and use common sense. Some information may be poorly referenced on the Internet, since it may not have made the transition from 'real life', but may still be fact. This is where common sense, two minutes of research, and a search engine of your choice can come into play.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
And good luck. We're all counting on you.
Hi there Matt. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of British words not widely used in the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Also, thank you for your kind notification of your latest removal of my constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. However, I should tell you that it is becoming irritating and is a waste of time. You are also being quite provocative - especially when you do not engage in any dialogue after I have tried to engage you with humorous criticism and advice. Instead, you stick boilerplate text on my talk page and make assumptions, as you have done with my contribution.
I believe one of the policies of this publication is WP:AGF. Clearly you have not done this and have merely been a) lazy and b) territorial. Ironically, this 'war' you seem intent on starting has probably taken up much more time for you than actual research on the subject which would prove to you, with the addition of common sense (as highlighted above), that my contribution is not a mere "test edit". I am offended at that accusation, by the way.
I appreciate, of course, that you have merely chosen boilerplate text to send to my page. But really, you should stop to consider whether your actions thus far is beneficial, in any way, to anyone. Because so far, all it has done, is made both of us in all likelihood, irate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.239.247 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If, for some reason, you're interested in knowing what the above is about, see edits here and talk here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
advice on the Kirkcaldy article
Hello again, mutt. the reason that i am here is i need your advice on how to address some issues in the article.
1883 linoleum factory - i know this must be mentioned; but i don't know where to place info on the infamous factory in the article.
Dysart becoming part of Kirkcaldy in 1929 through an act of parliament - although i am going to add this to the article (again), should the ties with both settlements be mentioned in the history section?
Culture - should the article start with an opening paragraph? maybe one on the various clubs and organisations in the town? also is it worth putting in info on the community festival and new peace garden in the Beveridge Park? as well as this both Ravenscraig and Beveridge are on the inventory of gardens and designed landscapes, is it appropriate? i want to refrain from having too much detail in the paragraph.
other than that, the article is looking really good. Kilnburn (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Linoleum - history subheading "Industrial History", per here?
The incorporation of Dysart etc. is mentioned, briefly, in the history section already. Were you going to expand on this or add a separate section somehwere?
Take a look at this. I would be cautious about a long list of clubs, restricting mentions solely to any that were particularly notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
July <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#"><a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">2012</a></a> Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages==
Dear Author/Mutt Lunker
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#"><a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">health</a></a>-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Irritable Bowel Syndrome. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#"><a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">e-mail</a></a> me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mutt Lunker, thank you for you interest in my disseration research project. I would like to ask you to complete a brief <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">online</a> questionnaire, following this link https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=18871 Once you complete the survey I would like to talk to you about your editing experiences and motivations you have for doing so. I can talk to you either through Skype/phone or if you prefer to answer the interview questions in a written form then you can e-mail me on nusa.faric.11ucl.ac.uk and I will send you the ethics form and the questions. Thank you so much and you input is greatly appreciated. Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nuša, I'm very briefly back on broadband having been limited to a smart phone and zero-to-feeble mobile signal the last few days. Is there a deadline for completing the questionnaire (as you mention a time limit on your talk page)? Brief as it is, I still may find it difficult to complete it properly for another few days but will see if I can if you have a very tight deadline. I'm also happy to talk to you, by the way. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mutt Lunker, I do not have a strict deadline, but let's say the end of this week (by Sunday, 29th) would be ideal. It would give me enough time to analyse your written response or in the case of interview, the transcript. Let me know whether you would prefer me to ring you/talk to you over Skype.thank you! Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That shouldn't present a problem. I'll be in touch. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mutt Lunker. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I don't know if it is you that keeps deleting my comments on the "Scots" language page. If not, then please accept my apology. My comments ARE about improving the article and should not be deleted.
It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to keep posting a comment to the effect that this is not a talk page for discussion of the "Scots" language. IT IS IF IT IS RELEVANT!
Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of your own personal beliefs. If, as in this case a concept is not widely accepted then that should be mentioned. In this case it is certainly clear that the claim for a "Scottish" language is disputed! You may wish to promote it. That is your right. However, not everyone concurs with your view. This should be referred to in the article on the so-called Scottish language in order for this piece to be balanced and fair and in order to fully inform those who wish to read about this subject so that they can make their own INFORMED opinion.
To delete my comments on the talk page because you disagree with them goes against the whole principal of Wikipedia and freedom of speech.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- EB Hall (often attributed to Voltaire).
John2o2o2o (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point entirely. I am not addressing your views, let alone agreeeing or disagreeing with them, but your use of the talk page solely as a platform for those views. If you have reliable sources for your viewpoint, these could be used to address the article, otherwise you are using the talk page as a forum for your own original research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoever you are you have not right whatever to criticise me or to try to delete comments I make about this. I take it you would accept it if I said "dogs bark"? This matter is perfectly evident to anyone who lives in the UK! Furthermore I am not altering the page, simply highlighting a perfectly valid point that you know and understand perfectly well on the talk page.
Your aggressive chasing and deletion of my comments - especially on to other pages not related to your section of interest is a violation of my human rights and amounts to bigotry. How dare you!
Leave me alone!John2o2o2o (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If, despite umpteen people informing that your POV-pushing posts are inappropriate and reverting you, you extend your activities to other articles as well, it is not only the right of editors to address your edits but policy would indicate that they ought to be so addressed. Your opinion, or mine, or that of any other editor is not a reliable source and talk pages are not a place for expounding one's own personal views about the topic of an article. You believing something simply to be "evident" does not suffice. Please try to understand this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, did you get as far as the second paragraph of the article as the issue of language and dialect is discussed there, as well as the Status section? Surely this covers the issue or are you unhappy with it because it does not unequivocally support your own viewpoint? Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Deep-fried Mars Bar
Matt. Lack of citation does not mean lack of truth. I witnessed deep fried mars bars in Sheffield in the mid 1980s.
That may well be the case but is neither here nor there in Wikipedia unless you have a reliable source. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Irn-Bru in County Donegal
That's fair enough, mate! You are right: I should have used a proper citation. I will try and find one. It is simply my own experience, as a native of County Donegal, that Barr'sIrn-Bru is HUGELY popular in my native county! Us Donegal 'wans' (ones) simply LOVE the stuff (along with our own McDaid's Football Special!)! All the wee shops in Letterkenny and other towns in East Donegal and Inishowen, in particular, are always well-stocked with Irn-Bru, that 'elixir' from 'Glasgae'! Irn-Bru is also hugely popular across Northern Ireland. However, for some reason, the drink is not as popular in the rest of Ireland. Anyhoo, I will try and find a citation to officially back my claims up. Laggan Boy (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I can believe it, with the strong ties between Donegal and Scotland but yes, if it's to be included our own general impression doesn't count, so a citation is needed. Good luck in finding one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Child abuse
Inflicting physical pain on children isn't child abuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.170.86 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are referring to the placing of tawse under [[Category:Child abuse]] by another anonymous IP (yourself?), per my edit summary I would suggest that one would be "better (to) take that to the talk page" (which would have been a better place to place your post above). I expressed no opinion on the appropriateness or otherwise of the category. I have though placed it under [[Category:Corporal punishment]], which is non-controversial but is a subcategory of [[Category:Abuse]]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Either the category is appropriate or inappropriate. If appropriate, there is no reason to remove it. I have reeinstated it. If you find the category inappropriate take it to the talk page. 84.134.170.86 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
RE: Daktari
The link I inserted was a link to WBShop.com for the DVD release of the first season of the show from Warner Bros.- please explain to me how this is considered vandalism?? The link has been re-inserted as your assertion is without merit, it is relevant to the article as there people who might be interested in buying the DVD and the link directs them to the website where they can do just that.The GateKeeper07 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not aware that these types of external links are considered spam according to Wikipedia's policies. I have undertaken the arduous task of going through every single article I inserted these links into and removing them. Hopefully no one else comes along and re-inserts them but that is the nature of Wikipedia (where anyone can edit) I guess?!The GateKeeper07 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for taking time to learn about the policy and for being so diligent in addressing this in the other articles affected. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
I am new to Wikipedia so thank you for the welcome and thank you for explaining why my edit was wrong. WalshAlfred (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem; being new you couldn't be expected to know this. It wasn't "wrong" really but now you know to check the parent categories of existing ones before you add a new one. Keep up the good work! Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
For WikHead: re McLean ref
Thanks for reverting the ref I added to MacLean; I was unaware that under WP:DABNOT this was to be avoided, although I can understand why this might be. Initially I had mistakenly thought you had also reverted my addition of the pronunciation but now see that it remains. Can you confirm that pronunciation is suitable for inclusion in a DAB page please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mutt ! Thank you for your thank you. No worries at all, I frequently run into contributors who've been here forever, but are not aware that we're told to avoid adding references and/or external links to dab pages. It's a small matter that I'm pleased to see has been resolved in good cheer. I wish I could answer your pronunciation question, but I'm afraid that's an area where I don't always do so well. I usually direct my pronunciation related questions to User:Kwamikagami (talk·contribs). He's very sharp with it, and very approachable when users have questions. I would highly recommend giving him a shout. It's a pleasure meeting you BTW! -- WikHead (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, one never stops learning. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually believe I first learned about WP:DABNOT the same way you did . Interesting to watch that big wiki-wheel keep turning. Have yourself a great day Mutt. Happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
To the self-styled "Cassandra" IP editor
I'm addressing you here as you persist in your inappropriate WP:NOTFORUM posts on article talk pages and as you have no talk page of your own to address you but pop up under various IP addresses, usually under the deluded handle "Cassandra". Your talk page would be the most appropriate place for replies as to reply on the article talk page compounds the inclusion of irrelevant material. Replies elicited by your posts are addressed to and personal to you really, as the issue in question is your misunderstanding of talk pages. The correct course is to remove forum-style posts though I sometimes leave them and indulge you with a reply because your persistence in your campaign, popping back with your latest killer WP:OR postulation to knock us dead, shows that you are struggling to grasp where you are going wrong. The fundamental problem isn't the theories in themselves, it's that they are yours. Coming up with yet another, however good, is still irrelevant for that same reason. If you were to come and say e.g. "noted linguist X states Y" you may be on to something but the nearest you have come is mentioning books you like, possibly with hints at WP:SYNTH derived therefrom. That very much does not suffice.
Once again, I would strongly recommend that if you persist in sticking around Wikipedia, you create an account. That way, you can be addressed if a matter is for you as an individual, rather than hoping it will be picked up at one of the many talk pages of IPs you use. I don't see any reason to think this is an issue with you but it would also help any possible question of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY which may arise.
Interesting, not to say hilarious, that you should latch onto a ludicrously misconceived post above by another editor who had similar difficulties understanding they can't expect their own original research (on a matter very considerably more obscure than the bleedin' obvious they imagine it to be) to be left in place just because "they know". If someone makes a fool of themself on my talk page I'm not inclined to spare their embarassment by removing it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Muppet
Thanks for working with me on the add'n here. I didn't have a lot of oomph but thought it should be there. I had left the BBC reader submission cite (which someone else had replaced mine with; with perhaps the excess of qualification you noted, in my upgrade of it; it is "slang" we're working on here) because it was more specific on definition. (I'd relied before on Wiktionary explicitly for the def., and we still rely on Wikt. without citation now.) (I was also interested in the BBCer's angle that it was a from-America-import raw material, from George's POV at least. I'm happy as is but could also see the BBC/George cite back, toned down a little perhaps, your discretion. I did gain the sense you've been helping the article a lot, not necessarily an appreciated task. Thanks again, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Likewise thanks. I was a little in two minds about applying the normal level of rigour to citations for this entry when at least they were provided, in an article the overwhelming majority of entries for which there was no citation at all, woefully. Since I clocked the pertinent passage in the NY Times citation on the second look at it, I saw it hits the nail on the head regarding the matter. I'd imagine George in Idaho's impression that it's a "Britishism" is correct and the publication of his post by the BBC might give a case to answer that that makes it a reliable source but I'd say that's borderline at best: see WP:USERG and WP:NEWSBLOG. One really good source more than suffices, so I'd stick with the Times and leave out George, interesting as his comments may be.
Regarding the article as a whole, you're right, I have been trying to sweep out the worst of the chaff and keep an eye on it. Nice to see someone prepared to cite a new entry from the outset. Good on you. This type of article can become a magnet for little OR snippets; when people see that it's largely uncited they don't feel the need to either. The articles can be turned round though; British slang has improved considerably since the entries were all (or largely) cited and it's much less of a target for drive by bollocks. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: Reliable sources
I see what you're saying. I'm trying hard to legitimately fit that point in because (1) if someone does hear the US "packie" and assume it's the same word, they might incorrectly remove "paki" or "paki shop" from the article, thinking that it's not a British word that's unused in the US; and (2) I've actually witnessed someone misunderstand the use of the US "packie" as a racist comment, when the speaker wasn't intending that at all, so it'd be nice to spread understanding that they are two different concepts. In any case, rules are rules, so I'll try to make sure any other source I add really follows the guidelines. M-1 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for the effort, taking the matter in good heart and for taking time to check out the policy. The term does seem credible (hence I didn't remove the entry), what's more it's good to see an attempt at sourcing in an article which is woefully undersourced but these citations are essentially self-published so if you are able to find a more definitive one, that would be great. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Dingwall
Hi Mutt. I invite you to google Dingwall Market town and see how many times it pops up. This is how Dingwall is known localy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathguide (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Googling it comes up with lots of refs to Dingwall as a market town and www.dingwall.org.uk/ (alone) which refers to it as "The Market Town" . A promotional web site which has "market town" as the banner subtitle does not provide evidence that this is a term which people notably use in reference to the town. It looks to me like a marketing slogan. If I'm wrong though and it is so widespread, you presumably won't have difficulty finding a reliable source (though not, as far as I can tell, with Google). Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it refers to it as "The market town of Dingwall", simply denoting it is a market town, not that "Market Town" is a byname. Are you serious? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
information taken from village website. I will remove the Facebook refs as I never realised that was against wiki policy, but I only put them up as you kept removing and asking for cites. Dingwall is locally known as the Market town. As mentioned before. A quick google search will show you this. now I see that you are removing other edits I made regarding the tourist information points in Strathpeffer. I suggest you start editing things you actually know about and stop removing info put up by other members otherwise I will have to pass your details on to the " Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism."
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathguide (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Continually telling someone to do a Google search is not a substitute for providing reliable sources. Anyway such a Google search in no way backs your case that "The Market Town" is a byname or sobriquet for Dingwall in notable currency, as I have now said several times. Continually stating the reverse makes it no more true. Whether you know more about a subject than another user is immaterial if you can not demonsrate your assertions with reliable sources. Your continual addition of uncited claims and promotional material is becoming disruptive, please desist from this. Please pay attention to the advice you are being given, read the policies you are being directed towards (particularly WP:RS (and WP:Verifiability as a whole) and WP:ELNO, also WP:PUFF and WP:SIG) but by all means go ahead and contact an admin as I'm sure you will learn from them too. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Scottish-English edits
Hi there. I've seen your edits on the above page. I don't mind the deletion of the 'hankie' example. I think I was trying to say that this is how a Scot would instinctively spell it, rather than hanky (which looks foreign to me). I assume 'hankie' spread southwards. though only someone from the OED could verify that. On another list of Scotticisms on the Scotticism page I wrote Ahm for I am, but someone with good credentials in a Scots language society changed it to A'm, so I assumed that must be the convention. Maybe that spelling should be used here also to be consistent. I'm not sure why you didn't agree with the Johnnie Cope example, though I admit it was probably not well explained. When I have written that title in the past, I have always hesitated and, on looking it up, realised Johnnie is the form used, at least originally, north of the border ("there's wee Johnnie"), but if you look across the internet you'll see Johnny as the spelling I assume it was given in England. Nowadays the spelling is presumably optional. I was recently asked via an email inquiry from a German folk song archivist why I was spelling it Johnnie instead of Johnny, as they knew it. I've no objection to that being deleted, however. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kim, by referring to it as original research I wasn't making any comment on the strength or otherwise of the theory but that it ought not to appear in the article if it doesn't come from a WP:RS, as I'm sure you know. I can see there may well be something in the theory but it shouldn't be in the article if it's just your assumptions, however credible. In regard to the rendering of "I am" in whichever version, I have seen "Ah'm" appear often in print though if there's an authority which states "A'm" that's fine but it clearly shouldn't be "Am" and in an article giving examples of Scotticisms in English it ought to be "I am". All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. Now I'm slightly puzzled by the changes made to the list of Scotticisms. I was trying to keep them consistent with the spellings in the list on the Scotticism page. I admit I've been guided by how some of the words sound phonetically (because of the reference to 'spoken' Scots) and how I have come across them rendered in print (and I'm aware of regional variation, of course), but I can't see anything wrong with rendering 'you' as 'ye', or writing "I'm gaun the messages" (as in "I'm gaun doon the road"). "Whaur dae ye bide?" was said to me a few months ago by a woman in Fife, and that is how you will see 'where' rendered in older texts conveying dialect; similarly 'tae' for 'to'. "Gie's a shot!" - I can't see any problem with that; a kid using the word 'shot' is unlikely to say "give me..." (more likely gimme, if not speaking Scots). Could you explain the rationale behind not rendering them as I did? Kim Traynor (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The crucial difference is that one is an article on Scotticisms in general, the other is a section in the Scots English article on Scotticisms being used in Scottish English. The use of the terms might be more usual in a Scots sentence and in the (general) Scotticisms article you could render examples of usage in Scots, Scots English or indeed other varieties of English (if they have been taken up in them). That however is of no consequence in the Scots English article where they are only of relevance to that article if they can credibly be used in the context of a Scots English example. If you think any of the examples would only be used in the context of Scots and not in the context of Scots English, they don't then have any pertinence as examples of Scotticisms in Scots English in the Scots English article. There's nothing wrong with rendering "you" as "ye" etc. if you are giving an example of Scots but in the Scots English article we're giving examples of occurrence in Scots English. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm beginning to feel mentally challenged. I'm not sure I've understood the distinction you're making between Scots and Scottish English. You're more familiar with the subject than I am, so you have a clear distinction in your mind. It's almost as if you're saying there is a pure Scots and something else which is English laced with Scottish idioms. All I was trying to do in both lists was think of Scottish constructions which are not simply a case of vocabulary substitution, i.e. a Scots word for an English word (for which there would be countless examples), but phrases which would not be understood superficially by south of the border English speakers. Classic example: "going for messages" (which I believe is of Dutch origin) would simply not make sense to someone to whom the idiom was unfamiliar. I then tried to render each phrase that I thought satisfied the requirement as it would sound when spoken by a Scots English speaker. I am seeing you as someone in a position to vet the two lists. Would it not be sensible to try and agree on how both should appear to maintain consistency? You seem to be saying they are of a different type because of the Scots/Scots English distinction which I can't fathom without further explanation. I can't imagine a casual browser appreciating the distinction. I hope I'm managing to make sense myself. 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
After another read of your last comment, I realise I am not understanding your definition of Scottish English (or Scots English). It now seems you're meaning borrowings of Scots into English. Is that right? Surely not. I am proceeding on the assumption that what we call Scots is for practical purposes a variety of English, a form of Old English of mainly Anglo-Danish origin spoken in Lowland Scotland. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the penny is slowly beginning to drop. From a re-reading of the intro on the Scottish English page I see that linguists have decided there is a Standard Scottish English which is "the characteristic speech of the professional class [in Scotland] and the accepted norm in schools." Ooh..at the expense of appearing a complete Philistine, I wouldn't like to put that to any kind of objective test between Coldstream and Inverness. That is a very curious, wide-ranging definition indeed. I can't see how it covers the speech of any individuals - the professional classes move in and out of native Scots a lot of the time in their speech; and how can it maintain that there is a school norm? Does it cover the language of teachers and pupils as a norm, or does it recognise a distinction in what the teacher speaks and the pupil speaks? Try comparing the language of a teacher at George Heriot's with a teacher at Coatbridge - both approximate to some degree to the language their pupils understand. In my opinion, this definition is skating on very thin ice. But I am now beginning to see what you mean. Most of the Scotticisms on that page will have to come off, as hardly any would be said by the professional classes. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You really seem to be going off at a tangent. Forgetting which languages/dialects/linguistic entitities/whatever-you-want-to-call-them are being discussed, the section in discussion is "(language) A-isms used in (language) B" so the examples have to be rendered in language B. You were rendering them in language A. If it was, say, examples of Latin terms used in Spanish and you gave examples of supposed Spanish by rendering the entire sentence in Latin that would clearly be wrong.
Scotticisms are used in Scots English all the time, they are pertinent here but examples should be given of their usage in the language of the topic of the article, Scots English. Don't blank them in a huff.
Regarding linguists, you or I might disagree with them (I don't in this instance) but neither of us are reliable sources. If your personal opinion and understanding of the topic is so divergent from those of linguists you should exercise care in, or indeed avoid, editing the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't blanked the list in a huff. I realised my mistake so I am trying to rectify it. If I can convince myself that an Edinburgh advocate or a schoolteacher might use one of these phrases in the course of a conversation, I'll reinstate it. An example of that would be someone commenting on it being "a dreich day". By the way, when I did an elementary course in Linguistics, I remember Professor John Lyons, a very distinguished and internationally renowned scholar, saying in a lecture that the only real expert is a native speaker. Kim Traynor (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
ucl.ac.uk and I will send you the ethics form and the questions. Thank you so much and you input is greatly appreciated. Nuša Hydra Rain (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of British words not widely used in the United States, you may be blocked from editing.
! Thank you for your thank you. No worries at all, I frequently run into contributors who've been here forever, but are not aware that we're told to avoid adding references and/or external links to dab pages. It's a small matter that I'm pleased to see has been resolved in good cheer. I wish I could answer your pronunciation question, but I'm afraid that's an area where I don't always do so well. I usually direct my pronunciation related questions to User:Kwamikagami (talk · contribs). He's very sharp with it, and very approachable when users have questions. I would highly recommend giving him a shout. It's a pleasure meeting you BTW! 
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathguide (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)